In fact, the only time the Demonrats offered anything resembling a compromise was when they said, “Maybe we’ll put in triggers for a public option, so that the public option will only happen if the insurance companies don’t meet certain criteria (which we will design to be impossible for them to meet).” That is the only thing the Republicans in the Senate were ever offered as a “compromise.”

The whole Senate Democrat attitude has been, “You can’t filibuster us, so f–k you!” Same at the House. And at no time did PBO intervene to tell his party to be receptive to Republican ideas. And he *still* has not done so.

The problem, he believes, is not the ideas, but their expression.

In other words: Obama truly believes that everyone else is stupid and wrong. And that if he just “listens” to them – but then does what He wants anyway, using the “listening” only as a “teaching moment” – then the world will love Him and the success of His glorious social-fascist ideas will become obvious and automatic, a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Good luck with that, Champ.

As for Tano’s nonsense: Unicorns also poll positively. Does that mean we can have them? Does it mean that a program whose stated objective is “a unicorn for every pot” (haha) could ever work in reality? What would it take, to make it work in reality? Should our country commit itself to such an effort? What kind of leader would take our country down such a path? Now mentally substitute “unicorn” with “ObamaCare” or “Big Government health care ‘reform’”, or for that matter with “economic stimulus”.

You seem to be claiming that the problem with governance-by-polling is the polling.

An objection to “governance-by-polling” is an objection to “governance-by-polling.”

“Hi, I’m Scott Rasmussen and I want to be the President. I will poll, poll, poll and order that the results of the polls be implemented. When times are tough, I will poll like a pro and see what people will support. When times are good, I will poll to see what frills would tickle the masses.”

This post is entitled: In his finest hour, Obama manifests his greatest weakness. President Obama said he was going to fundamentally transform America. He has applied extreme measures and pressure to the process of turning the US into a statist bastion of socialism. The people are in revolt. He has lost major elections. He can not quite come to the realization that his agenda is being renounced.

This is not about polling, it is about ideology. The President claims he is not an ideologue. OK, he has a huge problem with his huge non-ideologue’s ideology.

He told the Republicans assembled that they were refusing to move toward compromising with him. Apparently, compromise is a one-way street in the non-ideologue’s ideology.

Dan’s post is not about polling. But perhaps one of Obama’s greatest weaknesses is paying to much attention to polling. Polling has its uses. Demagogues poll words to see which ones produce the greatest desired effect. That helps them mightily in selling their snake oil. Polling probably tells Obama to kill Osama bin Laden and then bring the troops home 24 hours later. Polling probably tells Obama to greatly reduce unemployment immediately, stop the foreclosures, stop importing, create cheap and green energy and eradicate halitosis.

Say, remember when liberals were trying to convince us that they were better for business? Now we have evidence that was a total lie, as usual.

he believes people will just support his agenda if he expresses himself more clearly.

That is Obama in a nutshell.

He can’t for a moment imagine he might be wrong about anything. Or that any sensible person could posses all the facts and still disagree with him.

Such is the consequence of having an ego that needs to be measured in light years.

Which sent billions of dollars to nonexistent Congressional districts and fake zip codes.

And which has been found to do exactly squat.

If you weren’t so ideologically blind, Tano, you could see that Obama’s policies are not helping and are in fact wasting billions of dollars while hurting honest citizens. But you are an ideologue, like your Obama, and your ideology prevents you from thinking or assessing matters intelligently, just as Obama’s ideology prevents him from doing things correctly.

Well TGC, I’m glad that you were able to include a lot of cuss words in your comment, and insult the president, and I am sure, end up feeling so much better. I’m guessing though, that beneath all the bluster and blather, that you realize you were wrong, and he was right.

He’s right about what? That he had nothing to do with millions unemployed and therefore, it’s not his problem? That he’s doing everything he can to make damn sure nobody starts hiring and investing in their businesses? Feel better? Not in the least, but I was honest.

Thats beyond funny. Have you ever heard of this thing called a stimulus bill? 787 billion dollars?

The Pork bill/ slush fund for liberals? Yeah, I’ve heard of it. What I haven’t heard is what the hell good it’s done for John Q. Public. I do hear the WH making shit up and even the liberal media scoffing at it.

If it’s so damn wonderful, why does the arrogant SOBiC now getting around to talking about job stimulus? Why do the liberals keep talking about a Porkulus II whenever there’s a slow news day????????

Because it’s not meant to create jobs and help the people. It’s meant to help the Statists hang on to power.

No, cheesebrain. The problem, which I’m sure he knows and you dop too if you would have the intellectual honesty to admit it, is that you ideologues don’t give a rat’s ass for ideas, all you care about is their expression. It’s been a long slide dating to Lee Atwater and beyond, but Karl Rove perfected the politics above policy approach and you still haven’t figured out how you’re being used. Silly, silly tools.

Are you trying to argue that this stimulus promised, or any other type of stimulus program could possibly deliver instantaneous results?

INSTANTANEOUS???????

The recession began in December of 2007, a YEAR AFTER Democrats took control of both houses of congress — with Obama in the Senate.

They have been in power for THREE YEARS and all theve done is make everything much, much worse! Because they were the cause in the first place!

No, things dont happen instantaneously. The economy continued growing after Republicans lost power for another full year. It took a year of Democrat policies, of impending tax hikes, and promises of economy-killing regulation for Democrats to scare every business and individual in the United States out of taking risk, out of investing in new endeavors, new employees. It took a year for Democrats to turn a growing economy into a recession.

Then it took them another year to turn their recession into the financial crisis that began in October 2008 — two years after they took control of both houses — two years after they blocked all attempts to reform Fannie and Freddie and prevent a crisis that was predicted by Republicans.

And they did it, just as they undermined their own nation at war, to get back in power.

They’ve been in power three years, and the recession started two years ago, the crisis over a year ago… there is nothing instantaneous about it!

“Meanwhile, the arrogant sombitch doesn’t give a rat’s and hasn’t done a damn thing about it.”

Thats beyond funny. Have you ever heard of this thing called a stimulus bill? 787 billion dollars?

Are you trying to argue that this stimulus promised, or any other type of stimulus program could possibly deliver instantaneous results?

I’m saying that millions of people are unemployed and it’s not likely to change much anytime soon. Meanwhile, the arrogant sombitch doesn’t give a rat’s and hasn’t done a damn thing about it. He gives Americans the finger and says “Not my fault.”

I still want to know, if you break down a shit sandwich to it’s component parts, what makes it even more appetizing?

Well that is obviously true. The unemployment rate was already 8.2% during February – the month during which the stimulus bill was passed.

It reached 9.4% by May, shortly after the very first of the spending could, in any sense, be expected to kick in. And most of that spending was designed to happen much later.

Are you trying to argue that this stimulus promised, or any other type of stimulus program could possibly deliver instantaneous results?

Hmmm. Thats interesting. The usual objection to governance-by-polling is that it comes across as a manifestation of a lack of principle in the politician. And the lack of courage to stand up for what s/he thinks is right and good for the country, even if it is unpopular.

You seem to be claiming that the problem with governance-by-polling is the polling. That polls are not reliable – I assume you mean because they are such a small sample??? Is that what you mean? If you get a good poll – indeed the only poll that counts – an election,,,well then THAT is something that politicians should be responsive to.

N.B. – we are not talking here about the politicians who are involved in the election. The election itself takes care of that. Scott Brown won the election, so he gets to vote in the Senate for the next three years. No, you seem to be thinking that Obama should listen to this poll, oops I mean election, and make his decisions on that basis.

Let me know if I need to try to explain this again.”"

Let me know. Do I read you right here?

“I see a contradiction between reality and desire in his thinking.”

Why do you say that? What do you think the reality is? I would argue that the reality is just as he says. The constituent parts of the health-reform are popular – the package as a whole is unpopular.
We already know that some of the unpopularity of the package is a function of the fact that it is not liberal enough for some people. Setting those objections aside, the overall bill would have at least plurality support. The polls have been consistent on that.

What of the exit polling and issue polling in MA done around the election? What do they say about the reality of opinion in MA on these issues? What do they say about support for Obama? I sense that it is you who are trying to ignore some realities here.

Isn’t it amazing (not really) when you see what is being passed as some divinely inspired poll question?

Thanks for pointing out #10. You are so right! I just decided another relaxing round of iced lemoncello was preferable to parsing the whole slanted pole.

By the way, I favor having my charge card bills paid by Bill Gates.

I’ve spoken with many supporters of this round of HCR who defy the polls – as you have – by pointing out that sections are quite popular. This doesn’t seem persuasive at all.

Were a polster to ask me if I’d like a shiny, red Corvette, I’d give an enthusiastic “YES!” When he further points out that I’d have to pay for it, my support drops significantly. Even if I had the money lying around, my existing car still runs fine, I could use that money to buy new equipment for my business or even pay off some outstanding debt.

As a package, investing in a new car now just doesn’t make sense, irrespective of how fun it might be to fantasize about it. Is my analogy that far off the mark?

Best wishes,
-MFS

OK, so he met with Republicans, but it sounds like he met with them mostly to tell them why they were wrong and he was right. If that remains his attitude, then Friday’s exchange means nothing. If, instead, it marks a willingness on the part of his administration to not just rhetorically acknowledge that Republicans have alternatives, but to actually find a way to engage those alternatives, then there will be progress.